Saturday, April 30, 2011

About six months ago, I picked up Three Cups of Tea from a local used book store. I confess to buying books by their covers; I am a sucker for the pictures, if they are interesting, I will often buy the book and that is certainly no guarantee to how good the book will be. This book lay around for a month or so and then I picked it up to read. About half way through, I quit. I don't like to quit on books, I figure I should at least finish them before making a judgment on the book. But this book bored me, it was tedious. And not convincing; somehow the main character Greg Mortenson lacked the qualities necessary to do the kind of work he was talking about. Anyone who can give up a good part of their life to such altruistic work is usually quite a disciplined person,, someone who can put others before himself. Mortenson didn't strike me that way, anything but in fact.

So I feel rather vindicated to find that he has been caught out to be a total fraud. His organization CAI serves to fund his lifestyle, and half of the schools he claimed to found don't actually exist. Plus he simply lied. Claiming to have been left alone with Mother Teresa's body after her death, when he actually has the dates two years off makes one wonder what facts you can believe.

A good article to read on this is Do We Want to Be Fooled? by Bruce Bawer. I think Bawer asks the important question of why do we get deceived by people like Mortenson. In this culture that deifies celebrities, we should ask ourselves why we get taken in?

In recent days many commentators have lamented that it is dismaying to know that Mortenson’s a phony. No, what’s dismaying is that so many people were taken in in the first place. What’s dismaying is that so many people don’t seem to recognize a huckster, a con artist, a flimflam man when they see one — and, by the same token, don’t seem to recognize authentic virtue, selflessness, and humility either. Have we become so coarsened by celebrity culture, so accustomed to slick showbiz packaging and self-promotion, so habituated to feeding the ravenous narcissism of the famous, that we’re no longer capable of detecting what Big Daddy in Cat on a Hot Tin Roof called “a powerful and obnoxious odor of mendacity”? Hemingway said that the one thing a writer needed most of all was a foolproof “bullshit detector”; are twenty-first-century Americans’ bullshit detectors hopelessly out of whack? Have the glossy, streamlined, highly polished and tidily ordered versions of human reality served up on all too many “reality” programs and Oprah-type talk shows destroyed our very ability to separate the genuine from the bogus, the real article from the counterfeit, and even caused us to turn our noses at the imperfect, unprocessed, clunky, smudged, and pockmarked real thing? Do we want to be fooled?

Some might suggest that the elevation to the presidency of Barack Obama, an empty sales pitch in a snappy suit, answered these questions definitively. Others might point to cases like that of Al Gore, who despite his Mortenson-like fondness for private jets and his humongous carbon footprint (he’s used “more than twice the electricity in one month than an average American family uses in an entire year”) is still somehow getting away with his absurd environmental-hero act. One thing that has particularly stunned me in the wake of the Kroft and Krakauer revelations is the readiness of many of Mortenson’s longtime fans to react with a “Yes, but….” Yes, they say, Mortenson may have lied, cheated, stolen, leveled false accusations, and so forth — but he’s also done some good. Right — and Mussolini made the trains run on time. One can only hope that the shock of so many of these fans over the exposure of Dr. Greg’s perfidies will in time translate, in at least some cases, into a somewhat diminished credulity, a hesitation to embrace personal narratives that seem just too good to be true, and an increased willingness to approach every truth claim in a spirit of (dare one say it?) critical judgment. Admittedly, it’s a slim hope — but then Easter is the season of hope, isn’t it?

Friday, April 29, 2011

Michael Voris is known for being openly Catholic, being ready to defend the Catholic faith at all times and in all situations. I cannot disagree with any of his statements, at least not any so far, but I am always left with a bad taste in my mouth. And this video helped me to realise why.

Voris states, quite accurately, that there are Scripture passages that Protestants are not able to explain easily: for instance, the one where Jesus gives all authority on earth to Peter, and another when he says that we must eat his body and drink his blood in order to have life in us. There is also the fact that the Catholic Church was the body that decided which books were part of the real Bible and which books were to be left out. This predated the Protestant Reformation and those Scriptures have not been questioned since. And there is the disturbing fact that, if we are meant to be one body of believers, why are there no less than 40,000 different Christian denominations? When a group in one church disagrees with the rest of the church, they split off and "plant" a new church, basing their foundation on their various interpretations of Scripture.

The Catholic Church, on the other hand, can refer all such matters to the Magisterium of the Church (not the Pope exclusively as some would think) to be discerned. We have a body of authority to which we submit and which we trust since Jesus assured us that the Spirit would guide us after he left earth. The Magisterium is a body of knowledgeable individuals and matters are decided after much prayer, discussion, and discernment. Only rarely does the Pope himself make an absolute statement, from the Chair of Peter, matters that are then taught to be doctrines that all Catholics are bound to believe if they wish to be truly Catholic.

So what is wrong with Michael Voris stating all of this, when I believe it to be true? Because he discounts the vast wealth of Protestant teaching that is truly wonderful and edifying. I have personally received much more instruction from faith-filled Protestants than I have ever received from Catholics, clergy included. I have found individuals like Kay Arthur who founded Precept Bible Ministries, Charles Swindell, David Jeremiah, James Dobson of Focus on the Family, and my personal favourite Derek Prince whose books I refer to frequently; these people to name a few have been sources of truth to whom I owe a huge debt.

My daughter Elena once described the difference between Catholics and Protestants as the difference between a tapestry and a mosaic. A mosaic is composed of various small pieces, joined together to create a picture. The overall effect is one of colour and simplicity and the effect is pleasing. A tapestry is composed of thousands, if not millions, of tiny threads all of which join in an intricate web that depicts a more complicated picture. I guess it is obvious: the Protestant faith is like a mosaic, while I find the Catholic to be like a tapestry.

Both reveal something to the person beholding it. I do believe that the Catholic Church holds a wealth of tradition, knowledge, and revelation that is not available to the Protestant believer. But I have found, time and time again, that faith-filled Protestants call me to a deeper walk with my personal Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. By focusing so much on this core of the salvation mystery, they bring my attention back to the simple act of believing in the Lord and trusting in Him.

So while I remain a Catholic, largely because I cannot deny the truth of the Eucharist and because I have come to recognize the place of Mary in the history of salvation, I find that my Protestant brethren call me forward and edify me in a way that Catholics seem to miss.

I would hope that Michael Voris would gain a deep respect for his Protestant brothers in the faith, while remaining true to his Catholic identity. Dissing Protestants in order to build up the Catholic faith will only bring about the opposite; who wants Catholics who are suspicious of and ready to pick bones with other Christians? We are called to something much better than that.

Wednesday, April 27, 2011

Want to know how the media has handled this issue for years? take the time and watch this video. And then send the link to someone else. As Michael says, "the truth has got to come out" because this is THE big lie.

Tuesday, April 26, 2011

I am dismayed as I notice the political signs popping up on the lawns of people who should know better. But as my husband says, people are ignorant and politicans count on that.

From the May issue of Catholic Insight, here are some facts about which Catholics (and Christians) should be apprised:

a. The NDP. It was the first party to call for legal abortion (in 1967). It has an official pro-abortion plank in its constitution. It has no pro-life MPs. No faithful catholic should vote for this party despite its claim to champion the common man. In 2010 the entire caucus voted twice for abortion, first in the spring, then in December.

b. The Liberals. Pierre Trudeau made the killing of the unborn legal in 1969. Jean Chretien declared the party to be officially "pro-choice" in the 1990s. Paul Martin passed Canada's same-sex "marriage" law (SSM) in 2005. All three laid claim to being Catholics. The party's recent leaders, Stephane Dion, Michael Ignatieff and Bob Rae, (Ignatieff's understudy), are atheists who are devotedly pro-abortion. This they proved again in Parliament in 2010 (see NDP). Today the Liberals have only eight or nine pro-life MPs, mostly in the Toronto area (check out www.CampaignLifeCoalition.com).

c. The Greens. The party is anti-people, anti-child, pro-abortion, pro-SSM. Despite this overwhelming anti-life stand, in 2007 the editor of the Western Catholic Reporter diocesan weekly in Edmonton ran as a candidate for this party. Apparently he thinks that animals and trees are more important than people.

d. The Conservatives. Many of its MPS are pro-life. Harper is not. Some people claim he is only waiting to achieve a majority before he will reverse course into a pro-life direction. Harper says he will not. I take him at his word. The others take it that Harper is a liar and that this liar will straighten himself out as soon as he has his majority.

As far as I can see Harper will do nothing of the kind. Polygamy may become an issue if a B.C. court rules the ban against it is unconstitutional. Parliament may be called upon to address polygamy. Harper will do nothing. Polygamy is a natural consequence of the 2005 same-sex "marriage" legislation, which threw out the definition of marriage as a voluntary union between one man and one woman. Harper says he will not touch it.

The same thing may happen with prostitution, (and with transsexual "rights") which a misguided Ontario judge has ruled should be permitted.

As for ageing, and the demographic crisis facing Canada, Mr. Harper, who sees himself as an economist, has forgotten to take them into account in his budgetary and long-range economic forecasts.

WHAT DO I SUGGEST WE DO?1. Vote only for pro-life canddiates- Conservative and the few Liberals who are known to be pro-life.2. After the election, tell pro-life Conservatives to "Get Alive" and to form a sub-group in the Party to force Harper to either take pro-life seriously or get out as leader.3. If there is a CHP (Christian Heritage Party)candidate, who is pro-life, and there is no other pro-life MP in your riding, by all means vote for that candidate.- Father Alphonse de Valk, editor of Catholic Insight

Thursday, April 21, 2011

Sounds like carelessness to me. After all, AB Currie went to Mexico to investigate the five groups that LifeSiteNews had accused of being pro-abortion, he returned and said "no problem", then goes home to Newfoundland and now claims that the report that was written was not written by him!

“I came back to Newfoundland and the report was being prepared at the office of Development & Peace, and I think by the CCCB by Mario Paquette,” said Archbishop Currie. “By Mario Paquette and by Michael Casey and them. I did not know anything about how the report was prepared. All I know, I went down there and I was a part of the delegation – LaPierre and myself.”

Is he trying to pass the buck onto Paquette and Casey or is he just trying to squirm out of this mess himself? Or is he just dismissive of the whole issue and doesn't think it that important? Time will tell, but at least LifeSiteNews has been shown to have exhibited the most integrity in all of this scandal.

And he is breathing on his own! After doctors in Missouri did a tracheotomy on Baby Joseph, he spent some weeks in recovery and has been brought home to Windsor, Ontario.

Dr. Robert Wilmott, Chief of Pediatrics for SSM Cardinal Glennon and Saint Louis University School of Medicine, said Joseph has been breathing so well on his own there will be no need to take him to a local rehabilitation hospital and he can be transported to Ontario.

Medical personnel in London, Ontario had decided that this operation was too risky for Baby Joseph and they refused to do it. Father Frank Pavone, of Priests for Life USA, stepped in, financed the move to an American hospital where the procedure was done, and took care of the other expenses as well.

This really puts a shadow on Canadian medical care, when a baby is denied a simple surgery because the medical boards here have decided that this baby's life is just not worth the trouble and expense.

“Our mission to save Baby Joseph and help his family was never based on any prediction of the future, but rather on the value of his life here and now. Our critics, on the other hand, looking into the crystal ball that ‘right to die’ advocates seem to always think they have, claimed our intervention was futile because Joseph would only end up having a machine do his breathing for him,” said Fr. Pavone.

Thank you Father Pavone, thank you to all who contributed for and prayed for Baby Joseph and his family. Donations can still be sent to Priests for Life USA, as the costs have been considerable.

By the way, I heard about this first on news radio here in Halifax. I was stunned that they even carried the story and I think that is just great.

Wednesday, April 20, 2011

Wesley Smith, bioethicist and senior fellow at the Discovery Institute, as well as blogger at www.firstthings.com, concludes that the continuing seething hatred of Sarah Palin is due to the fact that she has a disabled child.

I have said that the source of some, perhaps much, of the irrational, seething hatred on the Left for Sarah Palin was her decision to give birth to Trig (who has Down syndrome) and openly love him unconditionally. (This isn’t the same thing as believing she isn’t of presidential material, which one can believe and not descend into venomous loathing).- Wesley J. Smith

Smith is referring to a blog post by Wonkette, a post in which he refers to Trig as "retarded", infers that he is the product of incest, and hopes he gets drafted in 15 years time.

This is a venomous post by a venomous person who has no understanding of the love of a parent for a child. And someone who will stoop so low as to mock a child with Down syndrome.

But this post reveals what so many won't say: that Sarah Palin is hated because she shows the values that they have failed to fulfill in their own lives - love of others, basic sexual morality, care for the disabled, love of one's family. They hate her because her very person is a criticism of their own lack of values, or rather their lack of trying to have any values. Much easier to just go with the flow and be a relativist schmuck like everyone else. Small wonder she is such a lightning rod in the present culture.

I do not claim to be an authority on this, and please excuse me if I come across that way. But I have very strong thoughts on this issue and I present them here in the hope that you will think about them and perhaps even comment.

When Christians are facing an election in their country, what guidelines should they be looking at to help them decide how to vote? Here in Canada, we have three major political parties, two of whom have party lines on the issues of abortion and same sex marriage. (We have a new fourth party, the Christian Heritage Party but it is quite small and there are no candidates in my riding.) (And I do not even consider the Green Party which is rabidly pro-abortion.) These issues are critical for Christians to consider when voting, because those two issues undermine the very foundation of society. To overlook them when voting is to think that you can build a culture on something other than respect for life and the building block of the family which was instituted by none other than God.

When I ran my business (I had an online fabric business for nine years), I found time and again that people were guided by the lowest price in most circumstances. It didn't matter that they were going to spend hours making a garment by hand, the final decision seemed to be made by price point alone. The issue of quality, suitability of the fabric for the project came second to the best price. It frustrated me to see people putting their work second and making decisions simply on the basis of how cheaply they could get something. This is how sales work and stores use them mercilessly, even to the point of driving other businesses out of the market and thereby reducing the selection of products for consumers.

I can't help but think that people regard voting in much the same way. They are guided by their pocketbooks, in other words the issue of the economy alone. So, even if someone has strong Christian principles, they put them to the background when choosing a candidate or party to vote for, because the #1 issue that guides them in voting is money. The party or the candidate who offers the best future for the public in tax cuts, in social benefits, in handouts, is the one that gets the vote.

As Christians, we have an obligation to vote by other guidelines. In his book Secrets of a Prayer Warrior, Derek Prince points out that our first obligation in prayer is to pray for our rulers and leaders. This is taken directly from St. Paul in his letter to Timothy:

Therefore I exhort first of all that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men, for kings and all who are in authrotiy, that we may lead a quiet and peaceable life in all godliness and reverence. For this is good and acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth. 1 Timothy 2:1-4

Note the reason for praying for our leaders - so that we may lead quiet and peaceable lives, lives that make it possible for us to live according to God's ways.

Which candidate, which party will best rule our country so that we can lead quiet, peaceable lives, lives in which we can serve God? This really puts a different spin on who to vote for. A society that condones abortion, that accepts same-sex marriage, that pushes for tolerance of sinful lifestyles, that turns a blind eye to pornography and prostitution is hardly a society that will be conducive to living a Christian life.

Yesterday's Gospel of the Passion began with the story of the woman who poured expensive ointment over Jesus' head. This raised an outcry from the apostles who thought this was a waste of good money, money that could have been given to the poor. What does Jesus say?

Why are you bothering this woman? She has done a beautiful thing to me. The poor you will always have with you, but you will not always have me. When she poured this perfume on my body, she did it to prepare me for burial. I tell you the truth, wherever this gospel is preached throughout the world, what she has done will also be told, in memory of her. - Matt 26:10-13

"The poor you will always have with you" does not mean that Jesus is telling us to neglect the poor, but rather He is saying that we cannot expect to create a utopia on earth. Solving the problems that came with sin will not happen in this world. Christians do have a duty to care for the poor, but when it comes to voting, our first concern is not to create an economic paradise because that is simply not possible. Our first concern in voting should be to look at what we should do for God, because it is God who will help us solve the economic problems of our society.

If Christians pray before voting, and remember that God's ways are not our ways, we will find more enlightenment when we vote. Which party, which candidate will work best to help produce an environment in which we can live according to God's ways? Not which party or candidate will make our financial lives better or anyone's financial life better. If we seek out people of integrity whose care is for the bigger picture of God's world, we will make the right choice when voting. To vote for a candidate or party that disregards the ways of God, even if they claim to be caring for the poor and disadvantaged, means that you too have put God's kingdom second to this earthly life.

Sunday, April 17, 2011

This week's Sunday bulletin from the Archdiocese of Halifax has an item entitled Election Issue.

As Christians and Canadians we have a responsibility to serve the poor.Go to www.candidatesagainstpoverty.ca and see if the candidates in your riding have pledged to narrow the huge gap that exists between the rich and the poor of this nation and to more fairly distribute the wealth of this great land. Encourage them to do so. Ask them how they will keep this pledge. Make this a vital issue in this election.

Just last week, the very same bulletin posted the 2011 Federal Election Guide given to us by the Canadian Conference of Bishops. Listed as the first guideline is "respect for life from conception to natural death".

I emailed the Archdiocese of Halifax immediately upon getting home and I certainly hope to receive a reply.

The bulletin of April 17 has an item entitled Election Issue in which Catholics are encouraged to make the discrepancy between rich and poor "a vital issue in this election."

I would like to refer you to the bulletin of April 10 in which the Canadian Conference of Bishops listed as the first priority in voting: "respect for life and human dignity: from conception to natural death".

This week's bulletin announcement sounds like a ringing endorsement of the NDP party. Everyone in this province knows that poverty is a priority of the New Democrats; however the right to life of the unborn is not.

There are mixed messages being given here; and I wonder if the person who writes these notices realises that they are not in line with Catholic teaching on voting in conscience. While I fully understand that we have a duty towards the poor in society, we must always first and foremost support the right to life of every conceived human being, as the Holy Father has been encouraging us to do. Being concerned about those we can see does not mean we can put those who are unseen on the back burner.

Sincerely, Julie Culshaw

I am left wondering if there is someone working in the archdiocese who is doing a favour for the NDP by putting in that notice. It is so obviously a retort to the previous week's announcement. As someone who once voted NDP herself, I can honestly say now that it is wrong for any Catholic to vote NDP. This party, while it does put poverty high on its priority list, also fully supports legal abortion, same sex marriage, and is pro-euthanasia and pro-assisted suicide. I would ask any Catholic, or Christian for that matter, what part of that agenda don't you understand? Or are you willing to overlook?

Update: I checked the site listed - and there is a link to a pulpit statement from Archbishop Martin Currie of the diocese of St. John's, Nfld.

Speak to your local candidates when they visit or go to listen to them at rallies. Ask them how they will stop this widening gap between rich and poor. Make this issue – the growing gap between rich and poor – the issue that determines your vote.

"The issue that determines your vote?" This comes from the same Archbishop who headed up the investigation into Development & Peace, that found no fault with the groups in Mexico that were pro-abortion. Just this past week, Archbishop Prendergast of Ottawa canceled talks to be given by Father Arriaga who represented one of the groups Currie found no fault with. I'm sorry, but this is one man whose advice I will not be seeking.

Saturday, April 16, 2011

... on Sunday night, I said that this historic, you know, $38.5 billion dollar cut amounted to the amount of money that the United States government borrows every ten days, slightly under ten days. And I thought that was pathetic enough. Now we find that it’s only a cut of $350 million, which is equivalent to what the United States government borrows every two hours. I mean, back in the 90s, I think there was a sort of competition to calculate how much money had to have fallen out of his pocket onto the sidewalk for it to be worth it in man hours for Bill Gates stooping to pick it up. You know, a historic budget cut that actually increases spending, this is a joke. This is a total joke. You know what we need to do? We need to abolish a cabinet department at the very minimum to show that the United States government is capable of reform. This country is broke. This country is broke, and the only thing preventing it from turning into Portugal, and then Zimbabwe, is the fact that the dollar is the global currency.

Actually that very issue is being looked at now, whether the dollar will remain the global currency. Americans really need to get a grasp on the debt that Obama and his government are piling up. Four more years of this guy and the US will be finished, if not before then.

If they can't see through the moral shallowness of Barak Obama, they should at least recognize that he is reducing their economy to Third World status.

Thursday, April 14, 2011

Mark Crutcher and Life Dynamics have been collecting evidence against Planned Parenthood since 2002 on the coverup of sexual abuse of minors. Yesterday they made public tapes never before released; Mark says the reason for the delay is that they have been trying to get PP to sue them for years. If PP sued Life Dynamics, then Life Dynamics would have access to much more information about Planned Parenthood through freedom of information legislation. PP did not fall for the bait, so Crutcher has decided to release the tapes.

91% of all Planned Parenthood clinics showed willingness to cover up the sexual abuse of minors and to provide girls under the age of 14 with ways to circumvent the law to obtain abortions, things like getting around parental consent laws, ways to cover up ages of boyfriends.

And President Obama is wedded to Planned Parenthood. He is keen to keep their support that he will overlook all the damning evidence that is coming forward. What other principles does this President have?

But according to Planned Parenthood itself, when it comes to services for pregnant women, abortion constituted 97.6 percent of the services Planned Parenthood provided in 2009. Only 2.4 percent of the organization's services for pregnant women involved prenatal care or adoption referrals.

If Republicans keep threatening to defund Planned Parenthood, they can probably get Democrats to repeal Obamacare, pass a flat tax and get a capital sentence for Khalid Sheik Mohammed.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

On all the big fights during Obama's presidency, Planned Parenthood has gotten what it wants: abortion subsidies in Obamacare, two Supreme Court justices who will uphold Roe v. Wade, and staunchly pro-choice Kathleen Sebelius at the Department of Health and Human Services, among other things.

It's no wonder. Planned Parenthood is no simple health care clinic -- it is a part of the Democratic Party. And despite the talk about "women's health," it is about abortion.

Planned Parenthood points out that most of its services do not involve abortion, but this misses the point. First, if Planned Parenthood didn't provide abortions, there would be very little energy to strip its funding. Second, almost all of its services for pregnant women are abortions, according to its own fact sheet published last month: It performed 332,278 abortions in 2009, while serving 7,021 prenatal clients and referring 977 parents to adoption services.

Liberals argue that Planned Parenthood's federal funding -- a bit more than a third of its billion-dollar budget -- does not fund its abortions, but only pays for other worthy services. But that's like the notorious gambler who asks you for money to feed his family. If you decline on the grounds that he'll just gamble the money away, he retorts, "No, man, I've already got my gambling money -- it's the food money I need."

Taxpayer funding seems like the sort of question over which even pro-choice politicians could compromise. But abortion is the issue where Democrats do not compromise.

Catholics and Christians in the US need to be thoroughly challenged if they vote Democrat. Father John Nieuhaus, former editor of First Things Magazine, was a staunch Democrat until he realised that all the social issues that the Democrats pushed for became intrinsically linked up with the right to abortion. And so he left the Party. So should every Christian who is a serious believer; you cannot be Christian and support abortion in any way.

It is well known that Sanger advocated for eliminating those members of the population that she thought inferior, namely people with coloured skin, people with mental disorders, people with physical disabilities. In short, Sanger was a eugenist.

So why does Obama give undying support to Planned Parenthood, the organization that claims Sanger as their founder? In the recent debate in Congress, Obama refused to take away any funding from Planned Parenthood. When John Boehner asked for some defunding of Planned Parenthood as part of the deal made recently between Obama and the GOP, Obama's response was "nada". Why? Why is Obama beholden to Planned Parenthood? Why is his promise of support for PP more important than other promises he has made, on which he has renegged?

The President’s total inability to make even the smallest cut to Planned Parenthood’s federal taxpayer funding should trouble those who are also concerned about our government’s record-high spending, debt and deficits. If Obama can not even defund even a corrupt, harmful organization like Planned Parenthood how will he ever cut bloated government entitlements – entitlements which you and I are being forced to fund? - Thomas Peters, American Papist

The amount of money given to PP by the federal government is under 400 million, while the national debt has spun out of control into the trillions. Even major trimming of the money given to PP would be a drop in a bucket, even less actually. The amount of the debt is staggering, impossible to comprehend, perhaps that is why Americans don't seem to be taking it that seriously and actually think that the US can recover from this.

Why the allegiance to Planned Parenthood, an organization that has been shown to be protecting sex offenders, to be hiding the sexual abuse of minors, to be operating clinics that fail to meet health regulations, and an organization that was started by a woman who was racist?

I think the answer is that Obama really doesn't care about these issues; to him, they are small potatoes. His interest is in remaking America to his vision of a country that is no longer "exceptional" in the world, a country that just stands alongside all the others with its values being given equal standing with those of countries whose leaders are refusing people their basic freedoms. In reshaping America to be an equal player in the world, rather than the country that could be called upon to lead in moral values, Planned Parenthood and their abuses simply don't matter to Obama. He keeps his promises to PP because they provide a voter base that he cannot afford to lose, those who vote Democrat from force of habit. And he can't afford to lose the next election, because he has a plan for the USA that is going to take more than four years to execute.

In his world view, aborted babies don't count for much, if anything. After all, this is a man who was abandoned by both his parents and raised by white grandparents. He is a man who does not see himself so much as an African American but as an African who happens to be American. There is a big difference.

Saturday, April 9, 2011

“Groups for LGBT students that counsel the students to reform their sexuality or try to stop them from being gay are not considered consistent with the ministry’s equity policy which is to support students,” said Mike Feenstra, press secretary for Minister of Education Leona Dombrowsky.

So not only does the government mandate that Catholic schools must allow for gay alliance clubs to be set up, they also prohibit the formation of a group that would offer assistance to students who might feel confused about their sexual orientation. Well, that is real freedom, isn't it?

Schools have become the tool of government and the minds of young children can now be indoctrinated any way some administrator deems correct. Without any input from parents, just by decree. Isn't this the way the Nazis indoctrinated young Germans?

Someone needs to lead the charge here; I hope and pray that some lawyer or priest or bishop, one with a clever mind, steps up to challenge this mandate by the Ontario Board of Education.

When gays form less than 2% of the population, who says that the rest of us have to bend over backwards to ensure that they are not discriminated against? In so doing, the other 98% of "straights" have to be subjected to all the politically-correct garbage that is being dumped on us. And, for those of us who are Christian, we are being discriminated against by the very ones who are claiming discrimination is hateful and wrong.

This issue is not about protecting some poor kid who feels maligned because he may or may not be gay; this is about a radical agenda of homosexuality, with its sinful lifestyle, being fobbed off on those who want no part of it. And the weapon they use against Christians is the very love and acceptance that are the Christian credo. What they fail to see is that Jesus loved the sinner, but he never accepted the sin. As Catholic Christians, it is our duty to uphold that difference.

Friday, April 8, 2011

As I wrote in my book “Man to Man: a Real Priest speaks to Real Men about Marriage, Sexuality and Family Life,” prior to 1930 every Christian denomination agreed in their opposition to contraception. Today, the Catholic Church stands alone. However, even though the Catholic Church affirms that contraception is intrinsically evil, the majority of Catholics in America completely rejects and ignores the Church’s teaching on procreation.

Abortion in America could end tomorrow if the Catholic Church in America were to take a militant and united stand against abortion. But, it can only take a militant and firm stand in favor of the unborn, if the Church were to affirm in practice, and not only in words, that contraception is intrinsically evil.

Thursday, April 7, 2011

Father Raymond de Souza has very clear insights into many current issues. And I was pleased to read his article today about Development & Peace.

In early April, D&P had arranged for a Jesuit priest, Fr. Luis Arriaga from Mexico City, to give various talks in Ottawa. Fr. Arriaga is director of the Miguel Pro Centre for Human Rights — one of the very agencies that LifeSite had reported on two years ago. At the very least, the idea of bringing him to Canada indicated that D&P, despite the archbishop of Toronto’s call for a “comprehensive review” of policies two years ago, considered it to be business as usual.

“Since the (Miguel Pro) Centre’s support of groups in favour of abortion rights in Mexico is incompatible with the Church’s defence of the right to life from conception to natural death and the mission of Development and Peace, and in order to remove any doubt about this commitment, the speaking engagements of Fr. Arriaga have been cancelled,” Archbishop Prendergast said.

I think the crux of the matter can be found in D&P's mission statement:

Its vision and mission statements say nothing about God, Jesus Christ, the Gospel, Christianity, evangelization, salvation or the proclamation of the kingdom. In its own self-presentation it is indistinguishable from a secular humanitarian organization, save for its official fundraising activities in Catholic dioceses.

It seems obvious to me that Catholics should not be giving one red cent to this organization. When I read that only 6% of the funds collected are given directly to crisis relief, while over 70% of funds are used to promote social change in the undeveloped world, I knew they would never get a penny from me.

I am glad to see someone as reputable as Father de Souza defending LifeSiteNews, after they have been slandered by Father Tom Rosica of Salt & Light Television. So, this Lent, if you are trying to decide where to give some of your tax return, consider LifeSiteNews . They are a source of news on life and family issues that I have come to trust.

I would hope that any investigations of D&P now by the Canadian Conference of Bishops would be more thorough than the previous ones. Perhaps Archbishop Prendergast should be considered for this task.

Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Regnerus, an associate professor of sociology and religion at the University of Texas, ultimately concluded that what influences teens more than specific denominational affiliation was what he calls "high religiosity" and teens being immersed in what he refers to as "religious plausibility structures." Here's how he defines that term: "A network of like-minded friends, family and authorities who (a) teach and enable comprehensive religious perspectives about sexuality to compete more effectively against ubiquitous sexually permissive scripts, and (b) offer desexualized time and space and provide reinforcement of parental values."

It is hardly surprising that, after parents, the church plays the biggest role in keeping teens from engaging in sexual behaviour before marriage. It is crucial that our pastors and church leaders realise that, far from interfering in people's private lives, their moral guidance is exactly what is needed.

Unfortunately, the majority of pastors are reluctant to speak on this subject from the pulpit. And I am not convinced that leaders of youth groups are talking about this much either. Just in case a pastor or youth leader might read this blog, I would like to suggest that, if you don't feel comfortable talking about the rights and wrongs of sexual behaviour yourself, there are people available who are. In this city of Halifax, Nova Scotia, the director of the Pregnancy Care Centre would love to be invited out to your group to speak both to the teens and also to their parents. In Yarmouth County, the director of the Tri-County Pregnancy Centre is also ready, willing, and able to do this. Just give them a call, they would love to hear from you.

These crisis pregnancy centres offer much more than counseling to girls in crisis pregnancies; the directors are all skilled at speaking to groups on the subject of teen sexuality and why abstinence is their best choice.

Ms. Behar speaks for many when she smears abortion opponents as “evil, immoral, unethical,” and “stupid.” Now there’s a moral inversion of the first order: Those who justify killing a developing child because his or her life poses a temporary inconvenience are waxing indignant and morally outraged at those who oppose such a gruesome act.

When she visited the United States near the end of the 20th century, Mother Teresa pleaded with Americans to reject abortion as “violence.” And so it is. Ms. Behar and most members of Planned Parenthood probably think of themselves as non-violent types. They’ve probably never fired a gun, and they probably oppose most wars. If asked to kill a baby robin in its nest, they’d probably recoil with horror.

Just finished reading He Leadeth Me, by Father Walter J. Ciszek, S.J. It is the story of his twenty-three years in Soviet prisons and labour camps in Siberia. But it doesn't read like an autobiography; rather it is a spiritual chronicle of learning to trust God in every moment, in every situation. Not difficult to read, as some spiritual books are.

I found it recommended on the blog Conversion Diary as essential Lenten reading and I highly recommend it. If you wonder how you can do God's will in your own mundane life, this book is a great asset.

Near the end, Father Ciszek makes a reference to abortion, the only place in the book that it is referred to. Of course, this piqued my interest since I have read several articles about the common occurrence of abortion in Russia. (The average Russian woman has five abortions.)

From the book:

How could you explain the larger evils of communism? These people knew of the terrors of Stalin's time; practically everyone in our group had a friend or a relative or at least knew of someone who had been to the slave labor camps of Siberia. Where was the system's much vaunted "humanity" then? Or abortion. Just take abortions. Here in our little town alone there were fifty-six abortions daily - just check the official statistics - and what about the rest of the Soviet Union? Is that any way to foster humanity?Abortion is legal in the Soviet Union. Anyone who wants one can have it performed. The government says it had to be legalized in order to prevent private abuses. The wages of husband and wife together make it hard to support more than one or two children, so everyone wants an abortion. Yet the question haunts them. The hallways of the clinics adjoining the abortion rooms were full of posters, not praising abortion but informing patients of the possible detrimental effects on both mind and body such an operation could have. The doctors, mostly women, and the nurses and other personnel would try to dissuade patients from the operation. Women confided years later that they could not rid themselves of feelings of guilt about it. And these were not "believers", but women and girls who had received a complete atheistic education in Soviet schools.Even for communism, it is a basic question of life and death, of wrong and right. If life at its very root can be treated so lightly, people would say, who is going to stop such a mentality from spreading? Society? Hardly. Society cannot even handle properly its present problems of crime and other social disorders. And when a society actually endorses evil, where will it end? Can man alone be trusted to solve mankind's problems? Look at history, and the depths to which civilized countries have sunk, time after time.

Father Ciszek spent from 1940 to 1963 in Russia and he would have been in this particular locale of Abakan in the late 50's.